SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Champions of the 1960's civil rights battle met again on the Supreme Court steps today to defend an important provision of the Voting Rights Act which was being argued before the high court. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla / Getty)
A central provision of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 faced heavy fire Wednesday from the right-leaning members of the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating that this "bulwark against racial discrimination in voting" is under real threat.
The Supreme Court Justices took in oral arguments regarding Section 5 of the VRA, the point of contention in Shelby County v. Holder, which requires all or parts of 16 "covered" states with long histories and contemporary records of voting discrimination to get federal clearance before making any changes to their voting laws.
Recalling earlier racial statements made by GOP nominee Mitt Romney of "gifts" to minority groups, Justice Antonin Scalia inflamed many civil rights proponents when he suggested that the continuation of Section 5 represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement." Adding, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."
Progressive advocacy group Demos responded to the statement calling it "a shameless inversion of history," adding, "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has stood as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting. It is widely recognized as one of the most effective and important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also challenged the defense with a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who many look to as the swing vote in this case, asked how much longer Alabama must live "under the trusteeship of the United States government."
"The Marshall Plan was very good, too--the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act--but times change," Kennedy added, indicating skepticism over the continuation of the rule.
Before heading inside to hear the arguments, hundreds of civil and voting rights advocates rallied on the Supreme Court steps Wednesday morning.
"The literacy tests may be gone but we still need Section 5 and that is why we are here today," Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) told the crowd.
"The Voting Rights Act restored justice, equality, and fairness to our country's most sacred right," added Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "We are now witnessing unprecedented attacks on the right to vote and now more than ever."
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A central provision of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 faced heavy fire Wednesday from the right-leaning members of the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating that this "bulwark against racial discrimination in voting" is under real threat.
The Supreme Court Justices took in oral arguments regarding Section 5 of the VRA, the point of contention in Shelby County v. Holder, which requires all or parts of 16 "covered" states with long histories and contemporary records of voting discrimination to get federal clearance before making any changes to their voting laws.
Recalling earlier racial statements made by GOP nominee Mitt Romney of "gifts" to minority groups, Justice Antonin Scalia inflamed many civil rights proponents when he suggested that the continuation of Section 5 represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement." Adding, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."
Progressive advocacy group Demos responded to the statement calling it "a shameless inversion of history," adding, "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has stood as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting. It is widely recognized as one of the most effective and important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also challenged the defense with a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who many look to as the swing vote in this case, asked how much longer Alabama must live "under the trusteeship of the United States government."
"The Marshall Plan was very good, too--the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act--but times change," Kennedy added, indicating skepticism over the continuation of the rule.
Before heading inside to hear the arguments, hundreds of civil and voting rights advocates rallied on the Supreme Court steps Wednesday morning.
"The literacy tests may be gone but we still need Section 5 and that is why we are here today," Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) told the crowd.
"The Voting Rights Act restored justice, equality, and fairness to our country's most sacred right," added Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "We are now witnessing unprecedented attacks on the right to vote and now more than ever."
_____________________
A central provision of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 faced heavy fire Wednesday from the right-leaning members of the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating that this "bulwark against racial discrimination in voting" is under real threat.
The Supreme Court Justices took in oral arguments regarding Section 5 of the VRA, the point of contention in Shelby County v. Holder, which requires all or parts of 16 "covered" states with long histories and contemporary records of voting discrimination to get federal clearance before making any changes to their voting laws.
Recalling earlier racial statements made by GOP nominee Mitt Romney of "gifts" to minority groups, Justice Antonin Scalia inflamed many civil rights proponents when he suggested that the continuation of Section 5 represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement." Adding, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."
Progressive advocacy group Demos responded to the statement calling it "a shameless inversion of history," adding, "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has stood as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting. It is widely recognized as one of the most effective and important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also challenged the defense with a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who many look to as the swing vote in this case, asked how much longer Alabama must live "under the trusteeship of the United States government."
"The Marshall Plan was very good, too--the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act--but times change," Kennedy added, indicating skepticism over the continuation of the rule.
Before heading inside to hear the arguments, hundreds of civil and voting rights advocates rallied on the Supreme Court steps Wednesday morning.
"The literacy tests may be gone but we still need Section 5 and that is why we are here today," Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) told the crowd.
"The Voting Rights Act restored justice, equality, and fairness to our country's most sacred right," added Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "We are now witnessing unprecedented attacks on the right to vote and now more than ever."
_____________________